These are my reflections on my interview project. I am recording the stories of people living with disabilities. Personal, real stories - be they humorous, sad, angry, fun, or ... whatever! Comments are welcome.

12 comments:

Maybe the Mom was trying to do her best. That ever occur to you? That everyone you meet isn't deeply into your particular linguistic model? That this Mom might have her own problems, maybe unemployment, maybe her husband is violent, maybe one of her children is mentally ill, maybe her mother has Altsheimers and everyone is wondering what do to about that, maybe she just got fired and no one knows how the rent will get paid?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. That you are disabled doesn't excuse you from the ordinary rules of human empathy and forgiveness.XXX

Hi. That you are disabled doesn't excuse you from the ordinary rules of human empathy and forgiveness which apply to the rest of us.

If not, why is it here? If so, please substantiate the need for it. Where has David asserted that he is excused "from the ordinary rules of human empathy and forgiveness"? I know him personally and he does not need this lecture!

The acerbic tone of your comment seems completely unwarranted. I would venture to say it lacks empathy and forgiveness - ironic, huh?

If you could clarify, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll conclude that you are attempting to teach what you most need to learn. It's a rather common phenomenon -people seldom recognize it, however!

I posted my thing here as an import from Wheelie Catholic, as in turn David posted from that site.

With approval, I assume.

The woman in the story was presumably trying to do her best. (If you have any reason to suppose otherwise, please give forth.) She failed the test, according to the blogger at Wheelies, and, I assume, according to David.

And that would be why exactly? Ah, of course no one is willing to answer that question.

I'm "acerbic" because I perceive this post to be highly critical of an individual who was doing her best to do the right thing, and who failed for reasons known to you-all but not to her. This seems unfair to me. If it doesn't seem unfair to you (ie, she's supposed to read your minds) please explain.

Being disabled does not excuse you from the ordinary rules of courtesy and good will.

I appreciate your response, Susan. These issues raise emotions, and I truly feel your comment toward David is completely off base and does nothing to propel the discussion. (Rule #1 in blogland, IMO.)

As I read the original post by Ruth, I was struck by the fact that the woman was completely clueless as to the effect of her use of the word "crippled" and subsequent statement about her being "different" and being surprised that Ruth could "hear" her! I commend Ruth's speaking up. Clearly, no one expects her to "read your minds" - not sure where that came from. People can't do better unless they know better. This was an opportunity to inform and communicate - a job that Ruth handled well, IMO.

How you got to defending the lady so strongly, to the point of denigrating and belittling Ruth and David, is what I don't understand. Ruth handled the situation with courtesy (spoke to the woman to the side) and respect (even though Ruth was steamed by the situation, she seemed to speak in a straightforward and kind manner).

I have no trouble giving the woman the benefit of the doubt. Ruth didn't either, judging by her measured response. Your lashing out toward those who are sharing this story is what troubles and confuses me.

Not that you-all disabled are required to do anything. For anyone. According to you. For strangers who don't have the right attitude, according to you. For Moms, strangers, who try to explain the situation to their kids and who don't use the Right Word.

As I read the original post by Ruth, I was struck by the fact that the woman was completely clueless as to the effect of her use of the word "crippled" and subsequent statement about her being "different" and being surprised that Ruth could "hear" her!

So, according to you, she's "clueless." I'll go with that. So, it's not an offense, as implied by so many other posts, because how can you rationally be offended by someone who does not intend offense?

If Ruth is, as you say, "steamed" by the encounter, what sense is that supposed to make? One might as well be "steamed" by a thunderstorm. Nothing personal intended, yes?

No no, your disability exempts you from all that, from thinking rationally. Some random person at K Mart doesn't use the Correct Idiom, she means well, but nevertheless she's a Bad Person. And parents who do their best to keep seriously disabled kids whom no one wants are Bad Persons for "caging" them at night so everyone can sleep.

If Ruth had given the woman the benefit of the doubt the post would never have been written.

I'm "acerbic" because I perceive this post to be highly critical of an individual who was doing her best to do the right thing, and who failed for reasons known to you-all but not to her. This seems unfair to me. If it doesn't seem unfair to you (ie, she's supposed to read your minds) please explain.

Dehumanization of people with disabilities occurs frequently. We with disabilities encounter it multiple times each day as individuals and collectively as a group. I have tried to share some examples of these encounters in my blog.

Language is important, because words have meanings – both dictionary meanings and emotional meanings. Think of possible words used to describe people of various races, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and so on. Some of these words clearly have derogatory sentiments attached. In the culture of disrespect for people with disabilities that we live in, there are also such words.

That said, actions speak louder than words. People do use offensive words without intending offense. Eye contact, gestures, tone of voice and context all clarify a person’s intent. I am not been offended at someone’s misuse of words if their intent is respectful of my personhood.

In Ruth’s encounter, Ruth states that she felt offended by the person’s lack of eye contact and general attitude. Surely, Ruth would not have been offended if the Mom had said something like this,“She’s a cripple. She uses a wheelchair to help her get around the store and shop just like us.” By the lack of eye contact, exclusionary words, and negative tone, the word “cripple” is given the full meaning that is so offensive.

One way that one might feel the offense in this situation, is to imagine oneself in Ruth’s shoes. Imagine the child and mother talking about you with a negative tone and avoiding eye contact. Substitute something about yourself for the word “cripple” – say your gender, your skin color, your religion, your ethnicity. For example, “She’s a (insert word here). A (insert word here) is someone who is different from us.”

You might feel the pain of dehumanization that Ruth felt.

Truly, disability is just another characteristic of humanity. And that's the main point I am trying to make.

OK, I'll take your word for that. And it's a bad thing to dehumanize anyone.

Language is important, because words have meanings – both dictionary meanings and emotional meanings.

OK. But different words mean different things to different people. "Cripple" is for some reason an insult to some people; not everyone sees it that way.

In Ruth’s encounter, Ruth states that she felt offended by the person’s lack of eye contact and general attitude. Surely, Ruth would not have been offended if the Mom had said something like this,“She’s a cripple. She uses a wheelchair to help her get around the store and shop just like us.”

Nothing in Ruth's post supports this conjecture.

That said, actions speak louder than words. People do use offensive words without intending offense. Eye contact, gestures, tone of voice and context all clarify a person’s intent.

Perhaps this woman did use a word offensive to Ruth (but not so perceived by the general population, so we're all supposed to be mind-readers) without intending offense. (Thank you.) Perhaps she looked away because she perceived that Ruth was offended and didn't exactly know what to do about that. (Hard to believe that Ruth didn't broadcast this offense on all wavelengths.)

You might feel the pain of dehumanization that Ruth felt.

All that given, I might. But rather than stalk off in a huff and post all this on the internet, might it be more productive to talk to the person involved right then?

______

You see, we all are potentially in the position of the Offensive Woman of Ruth's story. Maybe it isn't a disability, maybe its race or gender or creed. Maybe we give offense without meaning to.

Can we give each other a break? Or do we need to convict total strangers of Bad Behavior on such evidence as Ruth offers?

About Me

I took a year away from college to interview people with disabilities, share their stories, and post my reflections. I'm amazed by how much I learned over this past year. Now, I'm back in school, not having time to interview, but continuing to share my thoughts.
About me - I like sports, music, travel, and conversation. And, I have cerebral palsy.
I believe society often underestimates the complexity of living with a disability - the joys, the challenges, the ordinary, and the extraordinary.